A framework of evidence-based practice for digital support, co-developed with and for the autism community.
Vanessa Zervogianni, Sue Fletcher-Watson, Gerardo Herrera and 4 others
PMID 32026715WHAT IT FOUND
An autism community panel agreed that choosing digital supports should check reliability, engagement and effectiveness.
For SLPs, it says ask an expert, read academic papers and user reviews. It does not prove any app works.
Key findings
01The panel grouped evidence needed for digital supports into reliability, engagement and effectiveness.
02The final framework tells users to try out a product and get an expert opinion.
03The framework names speech and language therapists as relevant professionals to consult.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The final round had 23 panel members, and the authors note the sample was small for the heterogeneity of autism and stakeholder views. Researchers were not included in the first two rounds, so early themes came mainly from autistic people, families and professionals. Some panel members met criteria for more than one group but were listed in only one group. The framework was not tested with actual digital supports or users; the authors say future work will apply it. The panel agreed on sources of evidence, not on whether a digital support produces beneficial outcomes. Different groups may have different access to academic papers, expert opinion and user reviews. Online reviews can be unreliable, and the paper notes recent accounts of fictitious reviews. The words of caution mention over-engagement with technology that could monopolise a child's time.
Declared interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest. The study was funded by FIRAH, grant APa2016_026.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the agreed framework as proof that a digital support works. The panel agreed on sources to check, and the paper says the framework identifies the strength of evidence, not the outcome of the evidence.